Hattic

The grammatical feminine gender was developed by Indo-European in relatively recent times, and was superimposed on an older system of two genders (animate / inanimate). The virtual totality of Indo-Europeanists would agree with this affirmation; but there is no agreement between researchers over the factors which led to the emergence of this new gender.
By analyzing the diverse uses of the suffix * eH2 , Karl Brugmann managed to explain why the feminine grammatical gender includes many words which are not semantically feminine. Brugmann’s perspective is still substantially correct, but, in the exact terms in which he formulated this theory (more than a hundred years ago), it cannot give a satisfactory explanation to three important questions: (1) How did the diversity of uses of the suffix * (e)H2 originate? (2) How did some adjectives develop specific forms for feminine agreement? (3) Why are the ā stems and the thematic declension in complementary distribution?
The different theories that have been proposed since Brugmann can some-times answer one or (at best) two of these questions, but there is not a theory which can resolve the three questions simultaneously. Such a theory is, precisely, the object of the present study.

Hattic basic lexicon is compared with neighboring language families (Indo-European, Hurro-Urartian and Semitic). The result is compatible with an Indo-European origin of the majority of Hattic basic lexicon, complemented by a set of Hurro-Urartian and Akkadian loans.

An etymological dictionary of the Hattian language revealing a number of possible Sino-Caucasian cognations and some contact words. With various extra-linguistic excursuses and the criticism of the traditional West Caucasian attribution of Hattic.

It is argued here that the Minoan language of second-millennium B.C. Crete stands a good chance of being descended from the language that was imported into Crete by the earliest farmers that colonized the Island in the 7th millennium B.C. Evidence is presented that links Minoan to the Hattic language of second-millennium B.C. northern Anatolia. An
analysis of the Hattic verbal system supports the hypothesis that in turn Hattic is related to Sumerian. The existence of a Hatto-Sumero-Minoan language family is posited, which predates the expansions of Semitic and Indo-European in the Near East and which is implicated in the spread of migrant farmers into Europe. A word for 'pig' is reconstructed
for that language family.

In Keftiw/Minoan incantation against samuna ubuqi disease from London Medical Papyrus there three verbs: sabujajəjədʒa (a verb of movement), humakatu/humakātu, pawrəj/paurəj (supposedly verbs of oral/mental activity). The structure of these verbs demonstrates close resemblance with that of Hattic verb. In sabujajəjədʒa component sa-correlates with Hattic negative prefix šaš,-bu-correlates with Hattic marker of 2 nd person singular subject/agent-u-, ʒa/ʃа correlates with Hattic suffix/particle-aš (supposedly optative). The component hu-of humakatu/humakātu is probably allomorph of above mentioned-bu- ,-ma-looks like Hattic marker of patient/direct object of 1 st person-m-. Component pa-of pawrəj/paurəj correlates with Hattic marker of 1 st person singular agent/subject: fa-, and-w-correlates with a Hattic marker of object (supposedly an object marker of 3 rd person).

The Harappan seals contain several linguistic symbols which have not been properly understood so far.Through my works especially- Indus script decipherment breakthrough, PaNameTa-the troy tower weight  and measure system of Harappa, The Harappan Symbol Of 
Man+ Trident And Its Relation To Kausika Visvamitra  And The Kalinga Malla MeTas( Tower Weights), The Harappan Unicorn And The Kalinga Malla MeTas(Tower Weights) , The Harappan Symbol Of  Intersecting Circles And Its Relation  To Kausika Visvamitra And The Kalinga Malla MeTas( Tower  weights), The Harappan Contest Motif Of Nude Man With Six Locks Of Hair Fighting  Two Tigers And Its Relation To The Kalinga Malla MeTas( Tower Weights), The Harappan symbols of Roots, Nuts And Cocks And Their  Relation    To Kausika Visvamitra And The Kalinga Malla MeTas( Tower  weights), Identification Of KaNva In The Indus Script, Identification Of Troy In The Indus script,Identification Of Barley And Mustard In The Indus Script, Krishna’s Mathura And Dvaraka In The Indus Script, The Pinna In The Indus Script, The Identity Of Vedic Sarasvati And The Location Of Krishna’s Dvaraka, Identification Of Vedic Bharadvaja In The Indus  Script, Krishna’s Dvaraka  In The Indus Script, One Symbol  Of Indus Script Can Tell  A Lot About The Indus Valley Civilisation, The Identity Of Kasyapa In The Indus Valley And Sumeria, Kusa -The Son Of Rama-In Mesopotamia(Sumer),Indus -Sumer Trade, A Few “Copper” Names In The Indus Script, Janaka-King Of Mithila-In The Indus Script,The Vedic Asvins, Yama And Kartikeya In The Indus Script, The Goddess Sarasvati And The Origin Of Brahmi And Kharoshthi, The Origin Of The Roman Aes Grave From The Indus Valley Money, A Solution To The Mystery Of  The Gundestrup  Cauldron, The Eternal Soma Of The Vedas,              Vedic Roots Of Ancient Egyptian Religion, A Veiled Visvamitra Soma Sacrifice  In The New Testament , The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-1:The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-2,
The Punny Plough,The Bearded Kings Of The Ancient,
Bharata -The Language Of The Indus Valley Civilisation,
The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation -3,The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-4,Harappan Vedic Sacrificial Feasts In Mesopotamian Art And In The Bible,The Script of Indus valley Civilisation-6 :A Vrishni Silver Coin And Its Harappan Source,The Script of Indus valley Civilisation-7: The Conversion Of Makha(Sacrifice) To Tanka(Mint) In The Indus Script,Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-8:Vedic Root Of Gudea’s Akshayapatra,Three Men In A Boat Seal Evidence Of Indus –Dilmun Trade,The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-9: The Goodluck Symbols Of The Indus Script, The script of Indus valley civilisation-10:Identification Of The True Vedic Soma From Harappan Seals  Confirms The Indus Valley Civilisation As Vedic, The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-11:
Daksha (Soma) Yaaga-The Vedic Eucharist -In The Indus Script , The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-12:
Dāśarājñá And Dasaratha In The Indus Script, The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-13:The Silver Palm Seals Are Rosetta Stones Of The Indus Script , Vedic And Sumerian Linguistic Evidences For The Language Of Harappa, The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-14:The Difference Of Meluhha And Mlecca,
The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-15:The Shift Of The Capital Of The Vrishnis From Mathura( Kalibangan) To Dvaraka( Mohenjodaro), 6000 Year Old Mehrgarh Wheel
Amulet Employs Vedic Script, The Script Of Indus Valley
Civilisation-16:Vedic Sarasvati-Ganga Civilisation, The Identity Of  The RigVedic Rivers, Mohenjo-daro-The City Of Krishna , Gods fighting Dragons,The Script Of Indus Valley Civilisation-17:A Harappan Seal With A Majestic Bull,The Sindhu Is The Vedic Sarasvati ,Suvarna Is Not The Vedic Soma,Govinda Garudadhvaja Vishtarasrava-The Supreme God Of The Harappans, The Continuity Of Vedic Bharata Varsha Civilisation From Harappa To The Present , The Etymology of Irinjalakuda A Rosetta Stone For The Indus Script, The Identification Of The Royal Throne In The Indus Script,
The Identification Of The Royal Throne Of Lord Krishna In The Indus Script, The Star Of Bethlehem And  Its Relation To The Indus Script, The ‘Sma’ In Metal Names Of The Indus Glyphs, The Significance Of The Madhya-Ma In The Indus script, A Harappan Spiked Throne Confirms Vedic Identity Of  Indus Valley Civilisation, Vedic Rajasuya-The Harappan Ritual Of Inaugurating Kings As Gods -

I have shown that several seals contain vedic metrological terms,names of vedic ornaments,names of people, places and gods etc. My perception is that only a comprehensive study of ancient vedic literature, temple legends ,vedic rites and rituals, along with vedic  metrology alone can decipher the script symbols satisfactorily.A brief attempt in this direction is made here .A significant find herein is the existence of the Kalinga malla mana system during Harappan times challenging  the common perception of its origin from the later  Kalinga kingdom(Orissa).The unicorn is identified as the pala/nishka/soma/agni.Signs of intersecting circles, fish , crab,bud,tower etc. also indicate pala.The six locks of hair indicate  the paNameTa weight of six barley grains.Roots  and nuts indicate viira bhadra/ Drupada/ varaha/pala.We have located Lord Krishna’s Mathura and Dvaraka in the Indus valley scripts.
We have confirmed Mohenjodaro as the first Dvaraka
on the basis of the inscription on the copperplate B7C2 from there and textual evidences from the Rgveda, Mahabharata etc.We have located PadmakuuTa,one of the palaces of Krishna there.Also we have identified the Sindhu(Indus) as the Vedic Sarasvati river.We have gone through the symbols  identifying the Bharadvajas,the clan of composers of the earliest vedic texts.In Krishna’s Dvaraka we gathered more details from the script on Lord Krishna’s Dvaraka and Sindhu/Sarasvati. We have looked into the indications of the Harappan jar symbol with three forks on each edge.We have located  the Kasyapas in Hastinapura trading with Sumeria.We have decoded the Mari Standard,went deeper into the meanings of several Sumerian images and confirmed Meluhha as Vedic Harappa/Indus valley. We have located Janaka,the king of Mithila,father-in-law of Rama, in the Indus script.We have identified the names of copper in the Indus script and located  the Asvins,Yama and Skanda  in the Indus script.In A Model For Indus Script Decipherment we have identified the deity in the seal M-1181 and built a model for complete decipherment of the Indus script.
We have seen how  Brahmi and Kharoshthi evolved from the Indus Script and how the Indus script was in use along with Brahmi/Kharoshthi even into the  first centuries CE.We have seen how the coins of the ancient world,including the Roman coins evolved from the Indus valley money.
We have looked for  and located a Rosetta Stone for the Indus script, in the varaha/gadyanaka coin form.
We have gone into the relation of the Druids to the Indus valley civilisation and the role of their  Gundestrup cauldron
in the evolution of Christianity.
We have explored the relation of the Anau seal to the Indus Valley Civilisation.
We have gone into the relationship of the Egyptian and Harappan deities.
We have looked into a beautiful story from the New Testament
invoving  the vedic soma sacrifice in A Veiled Visvamitra Soma Sacrifice In The New Testament.
We have studied  the indications of some of the Indus script symbols with particular reference to their use on ancient coins of India .
We have looked into symbolism of the overflowing vase on the Sumerian statue of Gudea and through it we identified the indications of several Indus symbols including the Harischandra vaajapeya sacrifice.
We have seen how the Harappan glyphs served as goodluck symbols .
The identification of the right vedic soma has two important
aspects:First, it ends the long quest for the mysterious soma. Second,it confirms the Indus valley civilisation as vedic ,beyond any doubt.
We have studied the vedic Daksha Yaaga  and its relation to the soma yaaga.Also we have located  Dāśarājñá and  Dasaratha in the Indus seals.
We have explored the application of the palm soma seals as further rosetta stones of the Indus script .
We have looked into the claim of mlecca as the language of the Indus valley civilation and concluded that Bharata,not mlecca, was the language of the Indus valley civilisation.
We have gone into the shift of the vedic Yadava clans from the Ghaggar-Hakra to the Sarasvati(Sindhu) basin.
We have confirmed the river Sindhu as the Rig vedic river Sarasvati and the Ghaggar/Hakra  as the Yamuna.
We have established that the unicorn standard
of Harappan civilisation is  Govinda/Vishnu the supreme
god of the Harappans .We have also identified vedic
genealogies in some of the Bharata varsha seals
establishing the continuity of vedic civilisation from
Harappan times to the present day.We have also
gone into a possible link of the names of
the Harappan Mathura and Mesopotamian Assur.
We  have identified some of the Harappan glyphs indicating kings,thrones and palaces.
W have identified some of the symbols of Lord Krishna in the Indus script.
We have looked into the sma in metal names of the Indus script and the significance of the madhya-ma /naama.
We have identified the Visvamitra-Sunasepha story in the lady of spiked throne of Harappa.
We have gone into the significance of the Rajasuya ritual of Harappa.
We have looked into some of the metal work symbols employed by the Kausika/Bharata/Visvakarma
metal workers of Bharata Varsha/Harappa.
We have gone into the royal seats of Visvamitra,
Rama,Bharata,Krishna etc.in the Sindhu-Yamuna basin.
We have gone into the use of the man-on –tree symbol to indicate the exquisite finish of the throne especially in relation to King Bhagiratha.
In this article we are looking into the influence of the Harappan Bharatas in Hattusa,Mitanni,Egypt etc.

PUBLISHER'S DESCRIPTION:

"The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia is a unique blend of comprehensive overviews on archaeological, philological, linguistic, and historical issues at the forefront of Anatolian scholarship in the 21st century. Anatolia is home to early complex societies and great empires, and was the destination of many migrants, visitors, and invaders. The offerings in this volume bring this reality to life as the chapters unfold nearly ten thousand years (ca. 10,000-323 BCE) of peoples, languages, and diverse cultures who lived in or traversed Anatolia over these millennia. The contributors combine descriptions of current scholarship on important discussion and debates in Anatolian studies with new and cutting edge research for future directions of study. The fifty-four chapters are presented in five separate sections that range in topic from chronological and geographical overviews to anthropologically based issues of culture contact and imperial structures, and from historical settings of entire millennia to crucial data from key sites across the region. The contributors to the volume represent the best scholars in the field from North America, Europe, Turkey, and Asia. The appearance of this volume offers the very latest collection of studies on the fascinating peninsula known as Anatolia."

Hattic is poorly attested and understood. What little we know about its basic lexicon is summarized in this Excel file, whose source is O. Soysal's "Hattischer Wortschatz in hetitischer Textüberlieferung" (Brill 2004).
This file is intended as a stepping stone for researchers who want to try and understand the origin of Hattic by comparing our current, limited understanding of its basic lexicon against other languages and language families.

Hattic or Hattian is an ancient cuneiform language spoken in the Central Anatolia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. and in all likelihood earlier, whose corpus is rather small. Along with the well-known set of Hattic loanwords in Hittite and Palaic, Hattic shows traces of linguistic interference with some other ancient languages. The article examines lexical borrowings between Hattic and the Luwian, Hurrian, Semitic, Proto-West Caucasian, Sumerian, Ancient Greek languages.

In Russian. This is a part of a more extended paper “Hattic as a Sino-Caucasian Language” (to appear in Ugarit-Forschungen 41).

Hattic, possibly a language of West Caucasian Dolmen culture, might be Sino-Caucasian/Dene-Basque, related to the Pre-Maikop and other R1b cultures from Yelshan to Yamna of post-Zarzian origin. However, the closest Yenisseian relations of Hattic (A. S. Kassian) might be interpreted as northern origin of Hattic. Afro-Asiatic elements in Hattic might be accepted in two ways: Chadic-like – from the Dolmen builders of West European origin (possibly related to the Chatti tribe of Hesse) whereas Akkadian-like – from Mesopotamian neighbours. Maikop-Alaca similarities might reflect both Hattic and Hittite-Luwian presence in both cultures. If Sino-Caucasian elements of Hattic were of West European origin, it would be closer to Basque (also ‘mix’ of East Caucasian and Afro-Asiatic components), but specific Basque-Hattic similarities are absent. If Hattic was only of Anatolian (Çatal Höyük etc.) origin and not linked with Caucasus (despite Maikop-Alaca parallels in material culture and the end of Maikop-Novosvobodnaya about 2900 BCE, immediately before the beginning of Alaca about 2850 BCE), Chadic-like elements in the language couldn’t be explained. Hattic might also be a cult language of the Catacomb culture

Das Patriarchat in 3 Teilen: 1. Über die Hethiter, 2. Texte aus dem Alten Testament und 3. Texte aus dem Neuen Testament. Es geht um die Gleichwertigkeit der Archetypen der Grossen Mutter und des Grossen Vaters und deren patriarchalen Wertung, dargestellt an Göttinnen/Götter, patriarchaler Sprache und an Frauen und Männern. Stichworte: Hethiter, Kurustama, Suppiluliuma I., Seuche in Amka, Palästina, Jerusalem, Jah(u), Jahwe, Jerusalem, C. G. Jung, Archetpyen, Kupfer, Bergwerk, Königin von Alaca Höyük,  Hattier, Zalpa (Zalpuwa), Lihzina, Hannahanna, Kamrusepa, Sonnengöttin, Wettergott, Telipinu

The purpose of this monograph is to provide an introduction to the Hattic language in Greek. Hattic or Hattili, was a pre-historic language spoken in central Anatolia prior to and during the first centuries of establishment of the Hittite empire. Our knowledge about this language is limited, while material about it in Greek is inexistent. That is a gap I wish to fill. The region of central Anatolia is also connected to the migrations of the first farmers that settled in Greece during the neolithic period, therefore it would be of great value if the Greek academic community gave some attention to this less studied and very old language.

The article attempts to present the ethnic composition of the central regions of the Armenian Highland in the 2nd-1st millennia BC, based on the data from Armenian ethnogonic tradition and onomastic material of the ancient written sources. On the basis of those data, the presence of the following ethno-linguistic groups are revealed: Armenian, Hurro-Urartian, Hattic, Anatolian, and some details of their localization are revealed.

The talk is an overview of the data, genetic, archaeological and linguistic, which support the Paleolithic Continuity Refugium Theory (PCRT) of European prehistory. More specifically, based on the findings of genetics (studies of Y-chromosome and mtDNA), the following hypothesis has been brought forward for testing. It argues that during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), the hunter-gatherers of Europe retreated to the south of Europe, settling into three refugia, one in the Balkans, one in the Ukraine and a third in the Franco-Cantabrian zone, a geographic location where the Basque people and their language have survived. According to the results of various teams of geneticists and archaeologists, at the end of the LGM along with the warming of the climate that ensued, the hunter-gatherers inhabiting the Franco-Cantabrian zone slowly moved north and westward to take advantage of the food resources in the newly opened territories. Studies of Basque DNA (paternally transmitted Y-chromosome and maternally transmitted mtDNA) have shown significant similarities between Basques and populations inhabiting present and former Celtic-speaking zones along the Atlantic Façade. Furthermore, various haplogroups found among the Basques show up in other populations of European descent, leading the geneticists to argue that this situation might best be explained by positing out-migration from this zone over a period of several thousands of years, starting at the end of the LGM.

Moreover, it follows that populations in the rest of Europe might be related in some way to the out-migration that took place when people began to move out from this geographical region as the ice sheets retreated. In 2006, a multidisciplinary team of researchers –composed of geographers, archaeologists and geneticists, namely, Dr. William Davies, Dr. Paul Pettitt, Dr. Lee Hazelwood and Dr. Martin Richards coordinated by Dr. Clive Gamble, described the situation this way: “A major population expansion occurred in Western Europe during the Late Glacial (15-11.5ka CAL PB) as the OIS2 ice sheets retreated and unglaciated areas in the north became available for re-settlement. Phylogeographic analysis using molecular evidence assigns 60% of the European mitochondrial DNA lineages (Richards et al. 2000), and an even higher proportion of West European Y-chromosome lineages (Semino et al. 2000), to a population bottleneck prior to an expansion from southwest to northern Europe (Torroni et al. 1998; Torroni et al. 2001; Achilli et al. 2004; Rootsi et al. 2004; Pereira et al. 2005)” (Gamble et al. 2006: 1-2).

The key question posed by the research concerns the nature of the language that was being spoken by the hunter-gatherer populations when they moved out of this refuge. Gamble et al. was the first team of researchers to pose this question explicitly: “The growing evidence that the major signal in European genetic lineages predates the Neolithic, however, creates serious problems for the agriculturalist perspective. If western Europe was, to a large extent, repopulated from northeast Iberia [the Franco-Cantabrian zone] then, since place-name evidence suggests that people in this source region spoke languages related to Basque before the advent of Indo-European, the obvious corollary would seem to be that the expanding human groups should have been Basque speakers” (Gamble et al. 2005: 209).

The presentation lays out the methodology has been developed to test the validity of the corollary that Gamble et al. set forth in 2005. In the latter section of the talk the methodology is laid out and applied it to a concrete data set. The approach is a comparative one. It takes morpho-syntactic elements classified as Proto-Indo-European and compares them to what appear to be their counterparts in Euskara. Tests are then applied to determine the nature of the lineage of the two sets of morphemes in question. The PIE elements are ones recognized as common across IE languages and, therefore, as constituting the most archaic strata of these languages. However, until now IE research model has not sought to explain the origin of these morphological elements themselves.

Keeping in mind the results of the genetic studies cited above, the Basque language becomes a possible candidate for additional comparative work. Moreover, by focusing on reconstructing morphemic lineages, not languages, the PCRT approach to the data allows for a more fine-grained analysis of the linguistic evidence. To date the results suggest that two different layers of morphological elements can be identified in Indo-European languages, one much older than the other. The older elements coincide with morphemes indigenous to the Basque language, that is, elements that are not borrowed from IE languages. Rather, according to this model, they would go back to a family of hunter-gatherer languages of which Basque is the most direct descendent, while some of these morphological elements were also passed on and inherited by IE languages.

First of all, it is risky that to try to tie between Hattian and as a 'remote' culture of Northwestern Caucasian language that we have not original and sufficient data. It should be considered following points before: Features in detail of archaeological culture of Hatti (3rd millennium BC) and also Hittite (2nd millennium BC) periods should be well known. Hattian material culture related to tradiditional Anatolian culture that comes from Neolithic Çatalhöyük. On the other hand, contrary to common belief we should know that the Hittite have never had distinctive archaeological style during its reign. Though most of books tell fantastic stories of 'Hittite art' , it just consist of quotations assemblage from the arts of Anatolian, Mesopotamian and North African Bronze Age cultures. Architecture codes of spectecular palace and temples of Hattuša lie behind the colossal architecture style of Assyrian Trade Colonial period of Anatolia. 'Hittite pottery' is nothing but the continuation of traditional Hattian (Anatolian) period, and so on. Accordingly, Anatolian Early Bronze Age archaeological culture had obviously been inherited by Hittite, it seems heirs settled down at and used it up, but hardly ever created their own distinct style during the 450 years. Contrary to countless speculativ suggestions, neither Hatti nor Hittite have contacted Caucasian cultures. There is no archaeological trace regarding this 'potential connections'. It is obvious that the arriving route of the Hittites to Anatolia was not on the Caucasus. Hittites, during their life, not only set a foot on Caucasus but also passed trough the Eastern side of Euphrates as well. Hittites were not a nativ people of Anatolia, they most probably came to Anatolia from outside. We could not know where they entered this land, arguably from Thrace, but we know well that arriving line was not through the Caucasus. Caucasian territory during the third and second millennium BC has been mainly controlled by Hurrians as a owner of Karaz Culture. Up to day there has not been any defined 'unfamiliar' archaeological record over there. We should know that Hattians and Hittites two seperate cultures in social, economic and ethnical ways: Hattians were sedentary people. Hittites, before their Anatolian adventure, most probably were uncivilized nomadic people of steppes. They must have been frst introduced sedentary life and learned everything in Anatolia as a sedentary community, when they arrived this land towards the beginig of the second millennium BC. Particularly during the trasition period from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze-the time span was also the date on which the Hittites are starting to emerge-radical changes did not ocur in Central Anatolia. Because they have nothing to change the productive Hattian life style. In conclusion Hattians and Hittites were the two independent and seperate communities, Hittite were not continuation of Hatti. At least we know that because of its agglutinative structure Hattian should be differed from the European languages. By the way let's remember that 'ergative' cases could not afford to do the same in two different languages. In my opinion Proto Hattian people should have hypotetically been Altai origin as the other specific Asiatic people of Anatolia, Mesopotamia and North Africa (i.e. Hurri, Elamite, Kassite, Hyksos, smiths of the Luristan and etc). Hattian, like the others while one language within "Archaic Altaian" before 10.000 BC, it separated and determined its own destinity towards Anatolia (Guneri, A.S. 2016, Turk-Altay Theory).

Manuscript of the keynote address was presented on the international conference
“The Middle East: Language, Literature and History” dedicated to the 125th anniversary
of the prominent orientalist Joseph Orbeli (1887-1961) was held in in Yerevan, Armenia, October 30-31, 2012

Földvári, Sándor / Mr. / dr.
Sandor Foldvari, research fellow; cell-phone +36-30-6709134
Debrecen Univ. Baltic Studies; - home: H-2119 PECEL, P.O.B. 36.
E.mail: alexfoldvari@gmail.com
Professional: http://unideb.academia.edu/SandorFoldvari
Private: http://www.facebook.com/Alex.Foldvari

Oriental Studies in Hungary
in the 20-30-ies of the 20th century.

Abstract. The activity of Ignac Goldziher was finished by his passing away in 1921 and still influenced the research life for a longer time, mainly on the hadis and the Islam law. Being a Jew, he had sympathy to the Islam and consequently he was under oppression by his rabbinic colleagues as prof. Wilhelm Bacher. However, parallelly with this famous orientalist, another line of the Islam studies flew in Hungary. Ignác Kúnos was the first, who studied the Turkish folklore, gathered folk-tales and performances (Karagöz) on the academic level, at the same time he published also popular books, too, for the wide audience including the youth, too. These books were reissued several time and made the Moslem folk-culture very popular in Hungary in the 20-30-ies. Research papers of Kúnos have influenced not only the Hungarian but the Turkish and wide Moslem academic life for a half of a century. His student and follower was Abdul-Karim Germanus, who converted to the Islam and became a very hajji also a famous professor at various Moslem universities (in India, Egypt, etc). Germanus worked a lot for popularizing Moslem culture in Hungary on the professional level. His articles published in the Budapesti Szemle (“The Budapest Review”, the academic monthly of the capital of Hungary) remained unknown for the international audience, being written in Hungarian. Although he was the first who analyzed the forgotten türbe of Gül Baba in Budapest and some other buildings, remained from the Turkish era of Hungary (16-17 cc.), and for his initiative the restorations of these ruined buildings were begun. A pupil of him was the famous archeologist Győző (Yusuf) Gerő, who excavated all the ruins remained from the Turkish era in Hungary. Beyond the “History of Arabic Literature” and such well-known works, Abdul-Karim Germanus published apologies for the Islam on the “race” question, too, in Hungarian, when the chauvinism and nationalism had been rising in the 20-ies. Moreover, Germanus was a pupil and follower of Ármin Vámbéry (Efendi Reshid) who became only known as an expert of the Central-Asian Turkish languages and Sunni costumes, but not for his other studies on the Moslem pilgrimage and shia culture, too. "Meine Wanderungen und Erlebnisse in Persien" [My Wanderings and Experiences in Persia] was published in the late 19th but influenced in the early 20th century, determining the folklorist investigations made by his followers as Kúnos and Germanus..

Keywods: Hungary, Moslem_pilgrimage, Moslem_folklore, Germanus, Kunos, Vámbéry, Gül_Baba, Islam architecture

This update of https://www.academia.edu/35051212/Hattic_basic_lexicon
includes a new source:

Oğuz Soysal - Zu den rezenten Studien im Hattischen: eine Zwischenbilanz - in: Archivum Anatolicum 12/2-2018, p. 157-178

(https://www.academia.edu/38119714/ZU_DEN_REZENTEN_STUDIEN_IM_HATTISCHEN_EINE_ZWISCHENBILANZ).

New entries in red font.